On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Gregh wrote: > > >> - run on Windows, > > >> Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs and > > >> M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll. > > > > > > This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in > > > various meetings and from the user-agent headers) > > > > I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. > > Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and > > those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of > > any kind). > > > > Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I > > am told the nanog list is much bigger. > > You know, I wish I had Nanog posting rights. This whole thing is very SIMPLY > taken care of yet so many "professionals" are making a D in a B cup about > it! > > You can write/buy/install any flavour of OS you like with a very simple rule > in it to delete "out of office" messages from the server OR just blackban > that particular email address for "X" number of days. > > Why is the obvious always the thing most people argue about?
That wont work - how do you sort the bad ooo's from the legitimate ones. The problem is on the sending side not the receiving and a quick hack isnt going to fix anything but you may annoy a few people on the false positives you drop.. And any half decent IT manager isnt going to allow a hack into a system, they are going to require a proper solution. Steve